Paul Ryan, Draconian Budget Slasher?
I just did a podcast with James Delingpole (yes, the climate change guy) and he had mentioned that we might discuss Paul Ryan’s budget. Turns out we didn’t talk about Ryan specifically, but here was the point I was going to make:
Go to the actual budget proposal [.pdf] (so no fear that we’re relying on Krugman’s interpretation) and look at page 84. It says:
This budget tackles this crisis head-on by cutting debt as a share of the economy by roughly 15 percent over the next decade. The CBO estimates that this budget will produce annual surpluses by 2040 and begin paying down the national debt after that. [Bold added.]
Everyone understand what that is saying? Even under the Ryan budget’s own rosy scenarios (which don’t assume a massive interest rate spike or another economic collapse, for starters), the federal government will run a deficit every single year from 2013 through 2040. It will take them 27 years just to produce the first balanced budget.
If someone can figure out how many trillions will be added to the absolute level of the federal (cash) debt, let me know. I did it back in 2010 for Ryan’s “draconian” budget, but I don’t have the time to sift through this latest version to see if the number changed.
And remember kids: This is the wish-list. This won’t survive the actual political process over the coming decades. They are saying if they got what they wanted, then we would only have the federal government spend more than it takes in, for another 27 years. After that, it’s fiscal responsibility time, baby! When times are tough, the government needs to tighten its belt just like a household.
Don’t worry, Bob. The government in its infinite wisdom and resources will provide. Ryan is just making these draconian proposals to further his class warfare agenda.
What, are you using my babies now?
It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? Which politician has ever abided by economic plans devised 40 years in the past?
SS, Medicare? Lol.
Both of which prove my point. The forecasted expenditures for both were definitely not followed by politicians 40 years later.
You Austrian cultists never change. Don’t you know that the government deficit provides the non-governmental sector with essential net savings?
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2012/03/tick-tock-tick-tock.html
Everyone knows that!
I like it better when they say “inject financial resources.”
Gives the toilet paper money an air of necessity and sophistication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXkThljAeYw&feature=related
Bob, think of this as a foot in the door. And at the very least America will BE ON A PATH TOWARDS SOLVENCY, rather definite economic ruin. I agree that America gets outta the red a whole lot slower than I would like, but I’m pretty sure he wrote his plan to actually have the potential to get bipartisan support, not just conservative/libertarian support. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
So you believe we are currently on a path towards economic ruin, correct? Well, how many years do you believe we have until we are ruined? Do you think we can stay the course for another 30+ years?
By “stay the course” I assume you mean continue to accelerate deficit spending at rates like Obama has been. And continue operating without even a budget like we have for the past 1000+ days. And allowing mandatory (entitlement) spending to grow towards 100%+ of tax receipts like we have been. And the public continue to led into a false sense of security by the paper-fueled, false market rallies. Etc, etc.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure our current economic path is unsustainable. How many years? Not sure. I guess it depends on how much longer the world is willing to accept increasingly debased/devalued/worthless green paper for real, tangible goods and services.
I guess it depends on how much longer the world is willing to accept increasingly debased/devalued/worthless green paper for real, tangible goods and services.
Ergo the central banker’s penchant of propagandizing/financing wars against “enemy” nations that threaten to drop the petrodollar, why they really wail about “independence”, and why the economics profession has been almost universally bought off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jibRuq0J3uA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL0241B8F5DF535B91
I thought I read in some article (too hard to find on my phone right now) that Obama’s budget would add 6-odd trillion to the deficit over 10 years and Ryan’s would add 3-something. So depending on your point of view it’s either horribly non-balanced or the best effort we’ve seen yet from someone with a relatively important level of influence.
Under Ryan’s plan and reasonable projections does the deficit shrink as a fraction of GDP? I know there’s a lot in that ‘reasonable projections’ but I’m basically asking, if we don’t want to let the best be the enemy of the good, is there enough good here? Because no matter how disdainful Bob is about the two paties, for now that’s our choice.
“Because no matter how disdainful Bob is about the two paties, for now that’s our choice.”
Why do we have to support either parties plan? If they gave a crap about what we thought then we could’ve stopped TARP. I think it is wrong to believe whether we support one plan over another that it will make any difference on what they do. It would be another matter if we were the ones voting on the plans, but since we aren’t even in the game and have no impact on the game why should we support either awful plan?